Social remembering: Quantitative aspects individual and collaborative remembering police officers and students

Clark, N. K.; Stephenson, Geoffrey M.; Kniveton, Bromley H.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02347.x

Cited by 42 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That position was initially advocated by Shaw (1932) for problem solving tasks. The majority of investigators studying accuracy of memory in groups (Hartwick, Sheppard, & Davis, 1982;Clark, Stephenson, & Kniveton, 1990;Hinsz, 1990;Stephenson, Clark, & Wade, 1986;Vollrath, Sheppard, Hinsz, & Davis, 1989;Warnick & Sanders, 1980) agreed with Shaw's position. However, even within studies advocating error rejection in groups, exceptions can be found.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Memory distortion in group recall

Basden

Thomas

et al. 1997

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earlier we reported (Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997) that, in comparison with nominal groups (three people tested individually), three-person collaborative groups recalled fewer presented words but intruded more nonpresented words. In the present research, Experiment 1 showed that when presented words were associatively related to critical nonpresented words, collaboration inhibited recall of presented words but did not influence recall of critical nonpresented words. Experiment 2 showed that with categorized lists, recall of high taxonomic frequency critical nonpresented words was greater for collaborative groups than for nominal groups. Collaboration did not inhibit recall of presented words, presumably because guessing supplemented recall in collaborative groups. Greater false recall in collaborative than in nominal groups appears to result from activation of superordinate-to-item associations rather than item-to-item associations. MEMORY DISTORTION IN GROUP RECALLIn reviewing previous research, our concern was with the effect of the collaborative efforts of several individuals on the overall accuracy of their recall. Perhaps the earliest research reporting that group remembering introduces memory distortions came in the form of Bartlett's (1932) classic descriptions of reconstructions in recall. Bartlett suggested that memory changes occurred in conjunction with the development of schemas, socially influenced representations of the gist of the passage. He used the Method of Serial Reproduction, in which one individual first reads a prose passage such as the North American folktale "The War of the Ghosts," and then relates it from memory to a second individual, who in turn relates it to a third individual, and so on. Bartlett did not compare distortions by individuals repeatedly recalling alone (The Method of Repeated Reproduction) with those by individuals who related the passage to others in a group (The Method of Serial Reproduction). However, he did report dramatic changes in content with both methods. Thus, Bartlett's studies, as well as Allport and Postman's (1945) studies of rumor transmission in groups, indicate that collective recall may reduce accuracy.Perlmutter (1953) extended Bartlett's (1932) research by testing the recall of collaborating two-and three-person groups twenty-four hours after they had recalled "War of the Ghosts" as individuals. Perlmutter reported that individuals tended to reproduce the same errors they had introduced earlier, and that these errors cumulated across the group to make the product of collaborative recall less accurate than that of individual recall. Similar findings were reported by Perlmutter and de Montmollin (1952). Stephenson, Brandstatter, & Wagner (1983) compared initial trial recall of "War of the Ghosts" by individuals and two-person groups. They concluded that twoperson groups showed more reconstructive errors and were more confident of those errors than individuals. In contrast, Yuker (1955) reported that group recall was more accurate than indiv...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Memory distortion in group recall

Basden

Thomas

et al. 1997

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The finding that real groups recall less than nominal groups is highly robust (e.g., Basden, Basden, Bryner, & Thomas, 1997;N. Clark, Stephenson, & Kniveton, 1990;Finlay, Hitch, & Meudell, 2000;Hartwick, Sheppard, & Davis, 1982;Morrissett, Crannell, & Switzer, 1964;Stephenson, N. Clark, & Wade, 1986;Weldon & Bellinger, 1997;Weldon, Blair, & Huebsch, 2000;Wright & Klumpp, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups

Ekeocha

Brennan

2008

Memory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people remember shared experiences, the amount they recall as a collaborating group is less than the amount obtained by pooling their individual memories. We tested the hypothesis that reduced group productivity can be attributed, at least in part, to content filtering, where information is omitted from group products either because individuals fail to retrieve it or choose to withhold it (self-filtering), or because groups reject or fail to incorporate it (group-filtering). Three-person groups viewed a movie clip together and recalled it, first individually, then in face-to-face or electronic groups, and finally individually again. Although both kinds of groups recalled equal amounts, group-filtering occurred more often face-to-face, while self-filtering occurred more often electronically. This suggests that reduced group productivity is due not only to intrapersonal factors stemming from cognitive interference, but also to interpersonal costs of coordinating the group product. Finally, face-to-face group interaction facilitated subsequent individual recall.

show abstract

“…For example, it is commonly believed that "two heads are better than one," and research indicates that when people collaborate to recall an event the group does remember more than individuals working alone (e.g., Clark, Stephenson, & Kniveton, 1990;Dashiell, 1935;Hoppe, 1962;Lorge & Solomon, 1961;Stephenson, Brandstatter, & Wagner, 1983;Yuker, 1955). However, the question arises as to whether group recall is better than, equal to, or worse than the sum of the individual recalls.…”

Section: Collaborative and Individual Recallmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.

Weldon

Bellinger²

1997

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

336

524

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments compared collaborative and individual recall. In Experiment 1, participants encoded pictures and words with a deep or shallow processing task, then recalled them twice either individually or collaboratively. Collaborative groups recalled more than individuals, but less than nominal groups (pooled individuals), thus exhibiting collaborative inhibition. However, group recall appeared to be more stable over time than individual recall. Groups and individuals both showed a picture-superiority effect, a level-of-processing effect, and hypermnesia. In Experiment 2, participants recalled the story "War of the Ghosts" (from F. C. Bartlett, 1932), and again collaborative groups recalled more than individuals, but less than nominal groups. Both the individual and collaborative recalls were highly organized. There was evidence that the collaborative groups tended to rely on the best individual to a greater extent in story than in list recall. Possible social and cognitive mechanisms are considered.

show abstract

Social remembering: Quantitative aspects individual and collaborative remembering police officers and students

Cited by 42 publications

References 22 publications

Memory distortion in group recall

Memory distortion in group recall

Collaborative recall in face-to-face and electronic groups

Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About